It's fun, it's goofy... it's scientific papers that probably shouldn't be published anywhere else! Here they are, for worldwide open discussion and peer review! Some of it is news... some of it is strange... we just report it!

Friday, October 10, 2008

Real Medicine

Immunology began with a cow called ""Blossom"". She put blisters onto the fingers of her milkmaid, Sarah Nelmes. The milkmaid in turn saw her doctor, Edward Jenner.

Jenner had heard that when you get such blisters - due to vaccinia, the cowpox - you do not get variola, the smallpox.

Jenner speculated that the blisters might contain some mysterious substance, to which he gave the name ""virus"", which carries the disease.

So he asked a gardener - some people say his own gardener - whether he might experiment upon the gardener's son. Surprisingly, the gardener agreed.

In May 1796, Jenner took some of the fluid from the blisters - some of the ""serum"" - and transferred it from Sarah Nelmes to nine-year-old James Phipps. The boy developed a blister, too.

In the meantime, Jenner researched the smallpox outbreaks in the area. It was known that whilst most smallpox kills, sometimes the disease is survivable. Such a milder ""strain"" was highly prized. One could take the ""serum"" from such cases and use it for ""inoculation"". People who had been inoculated with a mild strain had a better survival chance.

Two months later, he was ready. He had found the mildest strain, and put it into the skin of James Phipps. IT HAD NO DISCERNABLE EFFECT.

Such is the real medicine. Medicine is a miracle. However, it is not supernatural. Rather, one would say it is natural - but nature at its best.

Nature had shown the way. Jenner was surprised and delighted. From the total absence of side-effects it was obvious that this was a major discovery. One might imagine that the world would beat a path to his door. Fame and fortune seemed to be guaranteed.

Instead came RIDICULE and SABOTAGE. There was - and is - a criminal gang who took over the government of Britain. They immediately decided to halt this progress. Their belief is that as long as there are plagues, epidemics, poverty and despair, people will turn to them and beg of them, and be ruled by them.

Cartoons appeared in the press. They showed people with pieces of cow emerging from their bodies - horns, head, udders. The whole idea of giving a bovine disease to humans had to be made to seem disgusting. Otherwise, people might submit to the treatment and the ""miracle"" might spread.

When that did not work, two fake doctors took virulent smallpox serum and used it to contaminate the ""vaccine"" of Jenner. The idea was that Jenner would ""vaccinate"" and his patients would die. He would be blamed.

What had seemed like a simple task - to spread the good word - had become an ordeal. Jenner was undeterred, but his valuable time was taken up by years of campaigning to try to convince the world of the importance of his discovery.

Eventually, he succeeded. His name became known internationally, and the British government even turned to him for help in the freeing of British prisoners of war.

Napoleon Bonaparte replied to a letter from Jenner, saying ""I can refuse nothing to that name"", and the prisoners were released.

What then of the cure for cancer? Would such a thing lead to immediate recognition? It would not.

One can expect ridicule, one can expect sabotage. Fame and fortune are unlikely to result from such a discovery.

Suppose in 1962 your mother dies of an alleged cancer. All the internal organs collapse directly after the administration of a chemotherapy dose. Surely it was an overdose?

You spend time pondering. It becomes clear that the disease cannot have been the cancer it was said to be, because the symptoms were all wrong. You begin to distrust doctors.

Then a report says that exactly half of the AIDS deaths were due to cancer, whilst the other 50.0 percent were due to microbes. You realise that AIDS is the collapse of the immune-system. It becomes obvious that it was the immune system that was holding the cancers at bay.

So immunology, which began with Blossom and Jenner, is the study of the control of CELL COLONIES. It relates not just to the ""virus"", or other microbes that come from outside the body, but also to internally-generated rogue tissue. Such tissue is called ""neoplasms"", or ""cancer"".

The worlds of ""oncology"" (cancer science) and ""immunology"" converge.

The author has a history as given above. His mother was indeed killed in the manner described, and the reasoning process that led to the convergence of the sciences took place. There was another factor in the story.

At the time of his mother's death, an advertisement had been put in the London Times, asking for help. An Australian living in Paris had been trying to save his wife. She died, but the Australian came to London and spoke to the author - saying that he had found two doctors with an unconventional approach.

According to the Australian, the doctors ""believed that cancer was a virus"". This might not be true - but it cast immediate doubt upon their work. It is, after all, known that radiation can cause ""sarcoma"" - a deep-seated cancer. Also, certain chemicals on the skin can cause ""carcinoma"" - a surface cancer. Neither radiation nor simple chemicals can conjure up a virus.

In the years that followed, it became clear that there are certain viruses - the RETRO-viruses - that put DNA into human cells, thereby changing them. Amongst the retroviruses that cause cancers are the papilloma, polyoma and Epstein-Barr viruses. So certain cases are indeed of viral origin.

The 50.0/50.0 split was a freak. Had the number of cases been an odd number, it could not have been so exact. However, the freak numbers were shouting out that the immune system treats germs and cancers EQUALLY.

So we have found not an answer to the question of the CAUSE of cancer. That is not a particularly interesting question, anyway. Instead, we can see from this result that the CONTROL of cancer is a job for the IMMUNE SYSTEM. The logic leads unerringly to the CURE.

The author appeared on television, being very careful because of the dark forces that would wish to suppress such progress. However, the message went out - the cure is to be found in the IMMUNE SYSTEM. The cure is ANTIBODIES.

The silence was deafening. It was as if the government had issued orders to suppress any further mention of the matter.

As with Jenner two hundred years before, the author had to run a campaign. The search for the cure for cancer had taken thirty-four years, and at the time of writing the spreading of the word of the discovery has taken a further decade.

In answer to one of the author's leaflets, the Head of Science of the BBC replied with thanks. The author was told to watch out for a future broadcast, in which a discovery inspired by the author's tip-off would be broadcast.

It turns out that when a person has bladder cancer, and BCG vaccine against tuberculosis is put into the bladder once a week for six weeks, the condition is cured. The success-rate is seventy to eighty percent.

The author contacted the BBC, and was sent a post-production script of the item. Further research revealed that the original discoverer was one of the two doctors mentioned by the Australian. Forty years of work had paid off. The name is only withheld to protect the doctor from danger.

The author had already decided that the immune system detects rogue cells by means of unfamiliar protein. We can call this protein the ""characteristic protein"" of the cells.

Medical intervention would involve using a second type of protein, which we can call the ""marker protein"" or ""label protein"".

The BCG treatment was therefore known to the author to be effective because the ""marker protein"" is water-soluble. It is something known as ""tuberculin"". The alcohol-soluble proteins in the TB germ are called ""new-style"". It is specifically the ""old-style tuberculin"" which is of interest.

The author realised that the inside of the bladder is WET. Old-style tuberculin will soak OUT of the vaccine and INTO the fronds of bladder cancer. There is a LABELLING, or MARKING process at work.

Some cases will fail because during the six treatments the patient did not fully empty the bladder. The old-style tuberculin will have been too dilute. In other cases, the patient will have consumed liquid too soon after the treatment. The bladder will have filled up before the transfer of the marker protein was adequate.

In yet other cases, the marker will have had no effect because the immune system will have failed to detect it. It will have been a PASSIVE MARKER. It is essential that the patient has a reasonably recent history of vaccination against TB, using BCG, so that the BCG old-style tuberculin marker will be recognised by the immune system.

A recognised protein, which has a matching antibody, is known as an ANTIGEN.

So to be an ACTIVE MARKER, the BCG requires that the patient is ""tuberculin positive"". This is tested by putting old-style BCG tuberculin on the prongs (tines) of a plastic comb, and pressing the comb into the skin. Within three days, the immune system will have detected this marker and caused local inflammation. This shows as the appearance of pimples.

Failure of such a ""tuberculin tine test"" suggests that the patient should first be vaccinated with BCG. Otherwise, the bladder-cancer treatment will fail.

Putting all this knowledge together should, in the absence of sabotage, raise the cure rate to a hundred percent.

What is happening is that the marker protein, being an antigen, attaches to its antibody. The antigen-antibody pair summons the T-cells. These cells are also called ""white cells"", or ""leucocytes"", ""leukocytes"" and similar. They eat up the tissue that contains the marker-antibody pair.

The T-cells are then washed into the lymph nodes. Here they pass on data to the B-cells. It is the B-cells that make the antibodies. Fed constantly with cancerous tissue inside the T-cells, the B-cells eventually develop a new family of antibodies. These new antibodies are CANCER ANTIBODIES.

So it is by STEERING the immune system that the condition is cured. It is because data on the ""characteristic protein"" is constantly arriving that the B-cells can finally ""discover"" that protein and make an antibody against it.

By extension, one could take a case of melanoma skin cancer and simply paint it with old-style tuberculin. In a tuberculin-positive patient, the T-cells will constantly deliver data on the melanoma to the B-cells until the immune system latches on.

Any carcinoma that is accessible can simply be treated by painting a marker protein onto the skin. Indeed, it need not be BCG and old-style tuberculin. It is just a marker to summon the immune system - and medical science has a choice of such things. It is just that tuberculin is most widely known and widely available.

Sarcoma can be treated by biopsy, and making what the author calls an ""autovaccine"". This is a vaccine made from the patient's own tumour.

There are detergents that are used in laboratories to remove DNA from samples. So the biopsy tissue should be ground up, and the DNA removed to prevent it having the power to replicate.

Now the protein from that tumour - with or without the husks of the cells - is treated, perhaps with new-style tuberculin. This is allowed to evaporate dry. Alcohol-soluble proteins will cling, even when the autovaccine is bathed in body fluid.

A certain amount of old-style tuberculin should also be used. This is because it is known to cause a strong reaction in vaccinated subjects.

The autovaccine is injected by sliding the needle sideways into the skin. The top skin layer is like cling-film, the CUTIS. Beneath that is the RETE MUCOSUM, a ripple of mucus where any skin-pigment such as suntan is located. Beneath that is the EPIDERMIS. This is the topmost layer of actual skin, and the place where the immune system is most active. That is where the vacine is placed.

By not going any deeper, one ensures that the reulting swelling will be shallow. A deep-seated inflammation would be more painful, and the abundant body fluids would wash the marker away too fast.

So a lung cancer, for example, could be treated by taking the characteristic protein of that cancer, combined with an active marker, and tucking it into the topmost layer of skin.

What one would expect is that after a little inflammation, throbbing, itching and swelling at the site of vaccination, the tumour itself will display the selfsame signs. That signifies that the immune system has latched on.

All good medicine is of this form - simple but sensible. Bombastic words are used by fake doctors to keep control of the patients by making them feel inadequate. However, it is from the world of simple logic that true progress arises. After all, giving vaccinia to protect against variola is a very simple idea.

Precautions are always necessary. For example, one must ensure that there are no tumours of any large size near any vital orrgan. Immunological treatment makes them swell before they go. So a large tumour in the brain might cause epilepsy, whilst a large tumour in the chest might stop the heart. Such matters must be attended to.

With all safety considerations dealt with, one can rest assured that the tumours will vanish from wherever they may be. Antibodies go wherever the blood goes. These are the ""magic bullets"" that science was looking for, and they come from nature.

When the treatment is complete, the antibodies stay for a time - perhaps for life. This is, after all, the CURE. One may suffer from some other cancer - but the treatment ""levels the playing-field"" in that one lives with the same risk as other people. A cancer with the identical characteristic protein cannot recur, however, because of the antibodies that the treatment leaves behind.

Some antibodies - to smallpox and cowpox, for example - are passed on in mother's milk. Others - as described in ""Lamarck's Signature"" (Steele et al.) - are handed on in the genes. So it is possible that a cancer survivor may pass on the specific immunity to his or her children.

It does not get much better than this.

Charles Douglas Wehner

About the author: Charles Wehner is an electronics engineer with experience in radar, nucleonics, measurement-and-control, photoelectrics, computer design and bio-medical instrumentation. He is not a doctor, but studied biology at university as part of a general science course. He was also a technical author.